The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house, with a single storey side projection (along the full length of the side elevation of the
main house). The application was for a first floor side extension, which would have been directly on top the
existing single storey side projection, and for a single storey rear extension, which would have covered the
combined width of the rear elevation of the main house plus the rear elevation of the existing single storey
side projection.

The first key issue was
whether the first floor side extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development
is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a
side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more than one
storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse”.

The appellant argued that the
existing single storey side projection replaced an original single storey side projection, and that therefore
the flank wall of both of these structures constitutes the “side elevation of the original dwellinghouse”. As
the proposed first floor extension would not extend beyond the line of this flank wall of the original single
storey side projection, it would not be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h). The Council argued that this previous
single storey side projection was, in fact, a separate dwelling, occupied independently of the application site
and therefore not part of the original dwellinghouse.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“Both parties agree that,
whatever it was, this side extension was demolished in the mid 1970’s.

This latter fact is
crucial and provides a simple answer. In the use of the present-tense word “forming” in A.1(h) of the 2008
provisions, it is clear to me that any wall forming part of the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse
has to exist for it to have any relevance to the PD provisions. In this case, the relevant wall was
demolished some 30 years before this building project started and it can therefore have no bearing on whether or
not the proposed second storey of the side extension is PD. I conclude, therefore that the side first floor
extension is not permitted by the 2008 provisions, being specifically excluded by A.1(h) (i) and
(ii).”

The second key issue was
whether the proposed single storey rear extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that
“Development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall
forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— (i) exceed 4 metres in height, (ii) have more
than one storey, or (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original
dwellinghouse”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“However, my finding with
regard to the status of the long-demolished extension also has a bearing on the rear extension. Because it is
the full width of the dwelling as extended by the side extension, it projects beyond a wall forming the side
elevation of the original dwellinghouse (the gable) and it has a width greater than half the width of the
original dwellinghouse. It is therefore within the category of development not permitted at A.1(h)(iii) of the
2008 provisions. In arriving at this conclusion, I have taken note of the floorplans, which shows that the part
of the building which falls foul of A.1(h)(iii) is incorporated into the rear extension rather than the side
extension. The external appearance of the building is also consistent with this finding.”

It should be noted that the
amount by which the proposed single storey rear extension would have extended beyond the original side wall
would not, in itself, have been more than half the width of the original house. As such, the above
conclusion was on the basis that the overall width of the proposed single storey rear extension would
have been more than half the width of the original house.

Main
Conclusions:

·The phrase “a wall forming a
side elevation of the original dwellinghouse” does not apply to an original side wall that has
previously been demolished.[Relevant to: “A side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(h), A.2(b), E.3].

·Under Class A, part A.1(h),
where part of a proposed extension would extend beyond an original side wall, the restriction against having
“a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse” applies to the entire extension
(i.e. not just to that part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall). In other
words, the overall width of the proposed extension can not be greater than then half the width
of the main house, even if the part of the extension that extends beyond the original side wall does
not do so by more than half the width of the house.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“A.1(h)”][Relevant to: A.1(h)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):